GOVERNMENT
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
29 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
62 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
55 | |
|
person
Recipient
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Adversarial |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
THOMAS
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
24 | |
|
location
court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Thomas
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Minor Victims
|
Protective |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein's counsel
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
7
|
3 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion to compel discovery from the Government, including Jencks Act, Brady, Giglio mat... | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court's ruling on Maxwell's discovery requests, concluding she is not entitled to expedited disco... | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court accepts Government's representations that it has disclosed all Brady and Giglio Material. | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Accusation by the government that Epstein paid Maxwell millions for recruiting young, underage wo... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government's intention to produce 'Materials' to the defendant (Maxwell) under a protective order... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Argument that defendants should be able to rely on government promises in written agreements and ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss Mann Act counts for lack of specificity or to compel Government to s... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Broader investigation into Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, covering periods beyond the Indictment. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government's review of 'Materials' (documents and photographs) related to Epstein's sexual abuse ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss indictment due to alleged actual prejudice from Government's delay i... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ex parte proceeding where government allegedly misled Chief Judge McMahon to obtain a subpoena. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Client's arrest and detention despite voluntary surrender. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion of discovery timeline, with the government requesting until November. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government initiated a massive OPR investigation into the execution of the NPA. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court agrees that some of Maxwell's concerns are overstated but acknowledges defamation action re... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement) not disclosed to victims | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Search warrants executed at properties of Jeffrey Epstein. | New York and Virgin Islands | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lefkowitz argued that the government was not required to notify victims under the § 2255 provisio... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Depositions taken as a result of government-supported civil suits against the speaker. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Indictment of Thomas | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| N/A | N/A | Opening of Grand Jury Investigation | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing regarding fines, restitution, and guideline calculations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Planned resolution of pending redaction issues | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Victims' lawsuit against the government | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ex parte modification of the protective order by Judge McMahon. | Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008391.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, specifically page 5 of 6 from Document 548 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 15, 2021. The Court denies the Defense's request for a witness to testify under a pseudonym, arguing that the witness does not qualify as a victim under the Crime Victims' Rights Act because her anticipated testimony is that she was not a target of sexual misconduct by Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. The Court distinguishes this situation from a prior ruling where pseudonyms were allowed to protect the identities of other, actual victims.
DOJ-OGR-00008390.jpg
This legal document, page 4 of a court filing dated December 15, 2021, details the Court's rejection of the Defense's request to allow a witness to testify under a pseudonym. The Court finds the request untimely, notes that other legal tools like a letter rogatory were available to compel testimony, and distinguishes the case from precedents involving undercover officers whose safety or operational effectiveness would be compromised by revealing their identity.
DOJ-OGR-00008381.jpg
This legal document presents an argument to the Court to preclude the testimony of Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman. The core argument is that Glassman's settlement negotiations with an entity called EVCP cannot be used to impeach a witness named Jane, because she testified she was unaware of these negotiations. Allowing this testimony would be improper impeachment and more prejudicial than probative.
DOJ-OGR-00008380.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 15, 2021, discusses the defendant's attempt to introduce statements from Robert Glassman to impeach a witness named Jane. The document details Jane's evolving testimony about a trip to New York with Epstein and the defendant to see 'The Lion King,' noting that her corrected recollections were communicated to the Government by her lawyer. The prosecution argues that Glassman's testimony on these same points is unnecessary and that questions about Jane's conversations with him were met with sustained objections.
DOJ-OGR-00008379.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against the defendant's proposal to call Brad Edwards, counsel for a witness named Kate, to testify. The filing asserts that Edwards' testimony about providing a U-Visa application for Kate is irrelevant for impeachment because it is consistent with Kate's own testimony and does not constitute 'powerful evidence of motive of bias' as the defense claims.
DOJ-OGR-00008377.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 15, 2021, is a motion from the prosecution arguing against allowing testimony from an individual named Scarola. The prosecution contends that Scarola's proposed testimony regarding another witness, Carolyn, is irrelevant and non-impeaching, as the information has already been obtained from Carolyn directly. The document also details over $3.2 million in compensation Carolyn received from claims related to Epstein and Sarah Kellen, and discusses a 2020 meeting where Scarola showed Carolyn a picture of an Epstein associate.
DOJ-OGR-00008376.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court filing (Document 545) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 15, 2021. The text argues against the defendant's motion to call three attorneys for victims (Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman) as witnesses, stating such testimony would be irrelevant, duplicative, or improper impeachment. Specifically regarding Jack Scarola, the document notes he represented victim 'Carolyn' in a 2008 lawsuit and before the Epstein Victims Compensation Program, facts which Carolyn already admitted during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00008370.jpg
This legal document, dated December 13, 2021, argues that testimony from attorney Robert Glassman is not protected by attorney-client privilege. It focuses on a discrepancy in a witness's ('Jane') memory, where she claimed Mr. Epstein took her to see 'The Lion King' on Broadway in 1994, three years before it premiered. The document details communications between AUSA Rossmiller and Mr. Glassman where the government pointed out the error, but Jane insisted her story was correct.
DOJ-OGR-00008365.jpg
This legal document, dated December 13, 2021, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense argues that the Court should permit the testimony of three witnesses—Mr. Scarola, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Glassman—to establish motive and bias of Maxwell's accusers, after the government refused to stipulate. The document details the proposed testimony of attorney Jack Scarola, including his prior representation of an accuser named 'Carolyn' in a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein and his communications with the government.
DOJ-OGR-00008348.jpg
This document is a partial transcript of a court proceeding dated December 10, 2021, discussing jury instructions related to New Mexico law concerning illegal sexual activity. The Court, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach deliberate on how to present evidence and frame the charges for the jury, with the Court indicating it will refine the instructions for clarity. The discussion highlights the legal interpretation of 'force or coercion' in the context of the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00008347.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2021, detailing a legal discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The conversation centers on the admissibility and relevance of evidence concerning sexual conduct in New Mexico to a federal conspiracy charge under the Mann Act, particularly in relation to New York's age of consent laws. The judge acknowledges the complexity and indicates the need for a legally correct jury charge.
DOJ-OGR-00008344.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on December 10, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge regarding jury instructions for an enticement charge. The core issue is whether the legality of sexual activity under New Mexico law is relevant or potentially prejudicial for a charge based on violating New York law, with the judge expressing concern about confusing the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00008337.jpg
This is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021, detailing a conversation between the judge and attorneys for the defense and government. The discussion focuses on whether the defense will call expert witnesses (LaPorte and Naso), with a defense attorney stating it's unlikely and was only considered as a precaution regarding 'Accuser No. 2'. A government attorney expresses concern about the potential for the defense to decide to call these experts in the middle of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008333.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. Attorneys Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach are arguing before the court about the nature of a witness, Mr. Flatley. The central issue is whether Mr. Flatley will testify as a fact witness or an expert witness regarding his methods for user data extraction, and whether sufficient notice was provided to the opposing side.
DOJ-OGR-00008331.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 12/10/21) detailing a legal argument regarding expert witnesses. The defense discusses the potential testimony of Mr. Kelso, noting it depends on the testimony of government witness Mr. Flatley, who will speak about metadata retrieved from devices seized at Epstein's home. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach responds that the government has provided ample notice and '3500 information' regarding Flatley's expected testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00008328.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 10, 2021. It details a discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Moe), the defense (Mr. Pagliuca), and the Judge regarding the physical inspection of evidence that occurred on November 1st. The Judge instructs the government not to mention specific evidence with uncertain admissibility in their opening statement and transitions the proceedings to discuss the admissibility of co-conspirator statements.
DOJ-OGR-00008324.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. It captures a dialogue between the judge and an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concerning the practical methods for presenting documentary evidence during a trial. The judge suggests preparing a binder of potential exhibits, while the attorney expresses concern, leading to a discussion about the role of a paralegal in displaying documents on a monitor during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00008320.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a pre-trial hearing. The judge notes that the government failed to include a financial institution on a list of entities to be mentioned at trial. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, then raises a procedural issue, proposing that any impeachment or refreshing of a witness's recollection be handled electronically.
DOJ-OGR-00008313.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2021. Prosecutor Ms. Comey addresses the Court to request a briefing schedule to preclude defense counsel from cross-examining government witnesses on specific topics, citing concerns about witness anonymization, embarrassment, and irrelevant criminal convictions. The Court instructs the parties to engage in further discussion to narrow their disputes before submitting a briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00008312.jpg
This document is a transcript from a final pretrial conference in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 10, 2021. Counsel for the government and for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, state their appearances for the record. The court outlines the plan for jury selection, which is scheduled to conclude on "Monday morning, the 29th," and notes that unused jurors are being kept on call at the recommendation of the jury department.
DOJ-OGR-00008305.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 9, 2021, details the testimony of a witness, Mr. Alessi, regarding telephone directories belonging to Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. Mr. Alessi describes the directories' physical characteristics, their contents (including contacts for friends, family, business, and massage therapists in Palm Beach), and how they were regularly updated. His testimony, which confirms the directories' appearance and purpose, is presented as being corroborated by other evidence, such as a 'Household Manual' (Government Exhibit 606).
DOJ-OGR-00008276.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 9, 2021, addresses the authentication and admissibility of Government Exhibit 52, described as a 'book' or 'household manual' belonging to Epstein and Maxwell. It discusses the defendant's challenge to Alessi's knowledge regarding the exhibit's origins and highlights the manual's contents, which detail practices and relationships between the defendant, Epstein, and other individuals. The document asserts that authentication does not require direct knowledge of creation or seizure, and chain of custody issues pertain to weight rather than admissibility.
DOJ-OGR-00008274.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 533) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 9, 2021. It presents legal arguments under Section I 'Applicable Law' to support the admission of Government Exhibit 52, citing various Second Circuit precedents to establish that the bar for authenticating evidence is 'not particularly high.' The text argues that challenges to reliability should go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.
DOJ-OGR-00008261.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing filed on December 8, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. During the proceeding, counsel for the government, Ms. Comey, informs the court they are working to identify a defense witness as the case approaches trial. After the court adjourns the hearing until the 23rd, an unidentified speaker raises a lingering issue regarding the jury selection (voir dire) process related to a specific employer, which is to be discussed at sidebar.
DOJ-OGR-00008255.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Dec 8, 2021) discussing pre-trial motions in limine. The Court discusses the schedule for ruling on the Government's motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert witnesses Drs. Loftus and Dietz (likely Elizabeth Loftus and Park Dietz). The text also mentions disputes regarding Government Exhibit 52 and the introduction of co-conspirator statements, with a final pretrial conference scheduled for November 23.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity